Clinical Management of Pressure Control Ventilation: An Algorithmic Method of Patient Ventilatory Management to Address “Forgotten but Important Variables”

Pressure controlled ventilation is a common mode of ventilation used to manage both adult and pediatric populations. However, there is very little evidence that distinguishes the efficacy of pressure controlled ventilation over that of volume controlled ventilation in the adult population. This gap in the literature may be due to the absence of a consistent and systematic algorithm for managing pressure controlled ventilation. This article provides a brief overview of the applications of both pressure controlled ventilation and volume controlled ventilation and proposes an algorithmic approach to the management of patients receiving pressure controlled ventilation. This algorithmic approach highlights the need for clinicians to have a comprehensive conceptual understanding of mechanical ventilation, pulmonary physiology, and interpretation of ventilator graphics in order to best care for patients receiving pressure controlled ventilation. The objective of identifying a systematic approach to managing pressure controlled ventilation is to provide a more generalizable and equitable approach to management of the ICU patient. Ideally, a consistent approach to managing pressure controlled ventilation in the adult population will glean more reliable information regarding actual patient outcomes, as well as the efficacy of pressure controlled ventilation when compared to volume controlled ventilation

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.other authors: Satoru Hashimoto,Daisuke Hasegawa,Junji Hatakeyama,Naoki Hara,Naoki Higashibeppu,Nana Furushima,Hirotaka Furusono,Yujiro Matsuishi,Tasuku Matsuyama,Yusuke Minematsu,Ryoichi Miyashita,Yuji Miyatake,Megumi Moriyasu,Toru Yamada,Hiroyuki Yamada,Ryo Yamamoto,Takeshi Yoshida,Yuhei Yoshida,Jumpei Yoshimura,Ryuichi Yotsumoto,Hiroshi Yonekura,Takeshi Wada,Eizo Watanabe,Makoto Aoki,Hideki Asai,Takakuni Abe,Yutaka Igarashi,Naoya Iguchi,Masami Ishikawa,Go Ishimaru,Shutaro Isokawa,Ryuta Itakura,Hisashi Imahase,Haruki Imura,Takashi Irinoda,Kenji Uehara,Noritaka Ushio,Takeshi Umegaki,Yuko Egawa,Yuki Enomoto,Kohei Ota,Yoshifumi Ohchi,Takanori Ohno,Hiroyuki Ohbe,Kazuyuki Oka,Nobunaga Okada,Yohei Okada,Hiromu Okano,Jun Okamoto,Hiroshi Okuda,Takayuki Ogura,Yu Onodera,Yuhta Oyama,Motoshi Kainuma,Eisuke Kako,Masahiro Kashiura,Hiromi Kato,Akihiro Kanaya,Tadashi Kaneko,Keita Kanehata,Ken-ichi Kano,Hiroyuki Kawano,Kazuya Kikutani,Hitoshi Kikuchi,Takahiro Kido,Sho Kimura,Hiroyuki Koami,Daisuke Kobashi,Iwao Saiki,Masahito Sakai,Ayaka Sakamoto,Tetsuya Sato,Yasuhiro Shiga,Manabu Shimoto,Shinya Shimoyama,Tomohisa Shoko,Yoh Sugawara,Atsunori Sugita,Satoshi Suzuki,Yuji Suzuki,Tomohiro Suhara,Kenji Sonota,Shuhei Takauji,Kohei Takashima,Sho Takahashi,Yoko Takahashi,Jun Takeshita,Yuuki Tanaka,Akihito Tampo,Taichiro Tsunoyama,Kenichi Tetsuhara,Kentaro Tokunaga,Yoshihiro Tomioka,Kentaro Tomita,Naoki Tominaga,Mitsunobu Toyosaki,Yukitoshi Toyoda,Hiromichi Naito,Isao Nagata,Tadashi Nagato,Yoshimi Nakamura,Yuki Nakamori,Isao Nahara,Hiromu Naraba,Chihiro Narita,Norihiro Nishioka,Tomoya Nishimura,Kei Nishiyama,Tomohisa Nomura,Taiki Haga,Yoshihiro Hagiwara,Katsuhiko Hashimoto,Takeshi Hatachi,Toshiaki Hamasaki,Takuya Hayashi,Minoru Hayashi,Atsuki Hayamizu,Go Haraguchi,Yohei Hirano,Ryo Fujii,Motoki Fujita,Naoyuki Fujimura,Hiraku Funakoshi,Masahito Horiguchi,Jun Maki,Naohisa Masunaga,Yosuke Matsumura,Takuya Mayumi,Keisuke Minami,Yuya Miyazaki,Kazuyuki Miyamoto,Teppei Murata,Machi Yanai,Takao Yano,Kohei Yamada,Naoki Yamada,Tomonori Yamamoto,Shodai Yoshihiro,Hiroshi Tanaka,Osamu NishidaGuideline

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.other authors: Yasuhiro Norisue, Satoru Hashimoto, Daisuke Hasegawa, Junji Hatakeyama, Naoki Hara, Naoki Higashibeppu, Nana Furushima, Hirotaka Furusono, Yujiro Matsuishi, Tasuku Matsuyama, Yusuke Minematsu, Ryoichi Miyashita, Yuji Miyatake, Megumi Moriyasu, Toru Yamada, Hiroyuki Yamada, Ryo Yamamoto, Takeshi Yoshida, Yuhei Yoshida, Jumpei Yoshimura, Ryuichi Yotsumoto, Hiroshi Yonekura, Takeshi Wada, Eizo Watanabe, Makoto Aoki, Hideki Asai, Takakuni Abe, Yutaka Igarashi, Naoya Iguchi, Masami Ishikawa, Go Ishimaru, Shutaro Isokawa, Ryuta Itakura, Hisashi Imahase, Haruki Imura, Takashi Irinoda, Kenji Uehara, Noritaka Ushio, Takeshi Umegaki, Yuko Egawa, Yuki Enomoto, Kohei Ota, Yoshifumi Ohchi, Takanori Ohno, Hiroyuki Ohbe, Kazuyuki Oka, Nobunaga Okada, Yohei Okada, Hiromu Okano, Jun Okamoto, Hiroshi Okuda, Takayuki Ogura, Yu Onodera, Yuhta Oyama, Motoshi Kainuma, Eisuke Kako, Masahiro Kashiura, Hiromi Kato, Akihiro Kanaya, Tadashi Kaneko, Keita Kanehata, Ken-ichi Kano, Hiroyuki Kawano, Kazuya Kikutani, Hitoshi Kikuchi, Takahiro Kido, Sho Kimura, Hiroyuki Koami, Daisuke Kobashi, Iwao Saiki, Masahito Sakai, Ayaka Sakamoto, Tetsuya Sato, Yasuhiro Shiga, Manabu Shimoto, Shinya Shimoyama, Tomohisa Shoko, Yoh Sugawara, Atsunori Sugita, Satoshi Suzuki, Yuji Suzuki, Tomohiro Suhara, Kenji Sonota, Shuhei Takauji, Kohei Takashima, Sho Takahashi, Yoko Takahashi, Jun Takeshita, Yuuki Tanaka, Akihito Tampo, Taichiro Tsunoyama, Kenichi Tetsuhara, Kentaro Tokunaga, Yoshihiro Tomioka, Kentaro Tomita, Naoki Tominaga, Mitsunobu Toyosaki, Yukitoshi Toyoda, Hiromichi Naito, Isao Nagata, Tadashi Nagato, Yoshimi Nakamura, Yuki Nakamori, Isao Nahara, Hiromu Naraba, Chihiro Narita, Norihiro Nishioka, Tomoya Nishimura, Kei Nishiyama, Tomohisa Nomura, Taiki Haga, Yoshihiro Hagiwara, Katsuhiko Hashimoto, Takeshi Hatachi, Toshiaki Hamasaki, Takuya Hayashi, Minoru Hayashi, Atsuki Hayamizu, Go Haraguchi, Yohei Hirano, Ryo Fujii, Motoki Fujita, Naoyuki Fujimura, Hiraku Funakoshi, Masahito Horiguchi, Jun Maki, Naohisa Masunaga, Yosuke Matsumura, Takuya Mayumi, Keisuke Minami, Yuya Miyazaki, Kazuyuki Miyamoto, Teppei Murata, Machi Yanai, Takao Yano, Kohei Yamada, Naoki Yamada, Tomonori Yamamoto, Shodai Yoshihiro, Hiroshi Tanaka & Osamu Nishid

Proportional modes versus pressure support ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Proportional modes (proportional assist ventilation, PAV, and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, NAVA) could improve patient–ventilator interaction and consequently may be efficient as a weaning mode. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether proportional modes improved patient–ventilator interaction and whether they had an impact on the weaning success and length of mechanical ventilation, in comparison with PSV. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 13, 2018. We included both parallel-group and crossover randomized studies that examined the efficacy of proportional modes in comparison with PSV in mechanically ventilated adults. The primary outcomes were (1) asynchrony index (AI), (2) weaning failure, and (3) duration of mechanical ventilation. Results We included 15 studies (four evaluated PAV, ten evaluated NAVA, and one evaluated both modes). Although the use of proportional modes was not associated with a reduction in AI (WMD − 1.43; 95% CI − 3.11 to 0.25; p = 0.096; PAV—one study, and NAVA—seven studies), the use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in patients with AI > 10% (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04–0.58; p = 0.006; PAV—two studies, and NAVA—five studies), compared with PSV. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies for AI, especially with NAVA. Compared with PSV, use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in weaning failure (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.26–0.75; p = 0.003; PAV—three studies) and duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD − 1.78 days; 95% CI − 3.24 to − 0.32; p = 0.017; PAV—three studies, and NAVA—two studies). Reduced duration of mechanical ventilation was found with PAV but not with NAVA. Conclusion The use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in the incidence with AI > 10%, weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation, compared with PSV. However, reduced weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were found with only PAV. Due to a significant heterogeneity among studies and an insufficient number of studies, further investigation seems warranted to better understand the impact of proportional modes. Clinical trial registration PROSPERO registration number, CRD42017059791. Registered 20 March 201

Efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with performance status 4: a case series and review of the literature

Abstract Background Current guidelines for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recommend that each tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is indicated even for driver mutation-positive patients with a poor performance status (PS). In previous studies, most patients had a PS of 2–3, but those with a PS of 4 were very few. Therefore, the efficacy of TKIs in patients with NSCLC with a PS of 4 remains unclear. Case presentation We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of four patients with NSCLC with PS 4 treated with TKIs: an 89-year-old Japanese woman (Case 1), a 80-year-old Japanese woman (Case 2), an 50-year-old Japanese man (Case 3), and a 81-year-old Japanese woman (Case 4). Genetic alterations were epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), MET exon 14 skipping, BRAFV600E, and ROS1 proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1). One case with ROS1 fusion showed a significant response with the recovery of PS. However, in the remaining three cases (i.e., EGFR, MET exon 14 skipping, and BRAFV600E mutations), patients died despite the administration of TKIs. These three patients had to be hospitalized at the end of their life to receive treatment. Conclusions This is the first case series to summarize the efficacy of TKIs in patients with NSCLC with a PS of 4. Additionally, this case series poses a question concerning the indication of TKIs for older patients with a PS of 4

Increase in intra-abdominal pressure during airway suctioning-induced cough after a successful spontaneous breathing trial is associated with extubation outcome

Abstract Background A patient’s ability to clear secretions and protect the airway with an effective cough is an important part of the pre-extubation evaluation. An increase in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is important in generating the flow rate necessary for a cough. This study investigated whether an increase from baseline in IAP during a coughing episode induced by routine pre-extubation airway suctioning is associated with extubation outcome after a successful spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). Methods Three hundred thirty-five (335) mechanically ventilated patients who passed an SBT were enrolled. Baseline IAP and peak IAP during successive suctioning-induced coughs were measured with a fluid column connected to a Foley catheter. Results Extubation was unsuccessful in 24 patients (7.2%). Unsuccessful extubation was 3.40 times as likely for patients with a delta IAP (ΔIAP) of ≤ 30 cm H2O than for those with a ΔIAP > 30 cm H2O, after adjusting for APACHE II score (95% CI, 1.39–8.26; p = .007). Conclusion ΔIAP during a coughing episode induced by routine pre-extubation airway suctioning is significantly associated with extubation outcome in patients with a successful SBT. Trial registration UMIN-CTR Clinical Trial, UMIN000017762. Registered 1 June 2015